Appeal No. 2003-0543
Application 09/292,745
Claims 1-3, 6-13, 16-18, and 30-34, all of the appealed
claims, stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Berg in view of Shimazu.2
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and
the Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs3 and Answer for the
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the Examiner, the arguments in
support of the rejection and the evidence of obviousness relied
upon by the Examiner as support for the rejection. We have,
likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, Appellant’s arguments set forth in the Briefs along
with the Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
2 The Ma reference, not part of the stated rejection, is cited by the
Examiner as providing evidentiary support for the use of metal oxide as a
solder resist mask.
3 The Appeal Brief was filed March 7, 2002 (Paper No. 20). In response
to the Examiner’s Answer dated April 29, 2002 (Paper No. 21), a Reply Brief
was filed July 1, 2002 (Paper No. 22), which was acknowledged and entered by
the Examiner as indicated in the communication dated September 4, 2002 (Paper
No. 24).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007